But the sequence obtained from a bone found in a Siberian cave is very good.

Today, the people behind the Neanderthal genome project (Svante Pääbo's group at the Max Planck Institute) loosed yet another Neanderthal genome on the world, a genome that many press outlets are calling "complete." This one comes from a single toe bone found in the same cave as the finger bone that helped us identify the Denisovans, an extinct group of humans who inhabited Asia tens of thousands of years ago. Apparently, something about the cave environment has preserved ancient DNA extremely well.

That good preservation, combined with improved techniques, has provided a very high quality new sequence. Genome sequences are obtained randomly, typically in stretches about a hundred bases long. Over something the size of a human genome (about 3 billion bases), this randomness means that some areas will be sequenced many, many times, and others will be missed entirely or contain errors that repeated sequencing would allow us to catch. The typical measure of quality for a genome is called "coverage," and that's simply the number of times the average base would be sequenced if every base was covered equally.

In this case, the genome has 50-fold coverage. That's well above draft quality (which tends to be around 30-fold), but there will definitely still be gaps, errors, and places in the genome that aren't sequenced at all. Still, that's about as good as we're likely to get with ancient genomes; the sequence includes almost all of the non-repetitive DNA found in the human genome, and it will provide a valuable resource for comparative studies.

The new genome, labelled Altai (after the region in Siberia where the Densiova cave is) in the diagram above, clearly groups outside the Denisovan and modern human lineages and in with other Neanderthals. But it's somewhat distant from the other Neanderthal genomic sequences we have, which are derived from bones found in Germany and Croatia. According to anthropologist John Hawks, there is also a Y chromosome present, which could allow some additional comparisons with modern humans.

As with the past sequences, the data has been placed in a public archive. Other scientists are free to analyze it, but they should coordinate any publications that analysis produces so that the people who generated the sequence get to have the first say on it.

We know that most modern humans have some Neandertal ancestors and between ~3% to~5% Neandertal DNA. John Timmer has done a number of excellent articles on this research. They're worth reading for good background. Some of the comment threads are really lively and informative too.

So if they ever do complete the Neanderthal Genome, and someone decides to clone a Neanderthal, would that be legal ? Since technically, they aren't "human" by definition.

There's been a large debate regarding the "humanity" of Neandertals. Since we now know there was some degree of interbreeding with the main line, Sapiens, many scientists regard the two lines as subspecies of one species. That would make Neandertals "human". Others still regard them as two species with modern humans being a form of hybrid species(and don't forget the Denisovans).

When you look at their level of technology and social organization, while it is slightly different from contemporary Sapiens, it's not so different as to declare them nonhuman. They buried their dead, lived in small communities, used tools extensively, built living structures contemporary for the times and life styles, appear to have created art, wore adornments, etc.. These things also mark them as "human".

While there used to be considerable contention that they were "different" than contemporary Sapiens, the "difference gap" is shrinking with more modern research. Later Neandertals, like Sapiens of the time, displayed pretty human behavior.

It's getting harder to argue that they weren't "human", though some people still do.

Checkout Wikipedia's articles and links to get some basic background or do a Google search for lots of online content. John Hawk's blog (the one linked in the article) is very good for some insight into some of the research going on. Also make sure to link back to some of John Timmer's articles here at ARS for good coverage of recent research.

So if they ever do complete the Neanderthal Genome, and someone decides to clone a Neanderthal, would that be legal ? Since technically, they aren't "human" by definition.

There's been a large debate regarding the "humanity" of Neandertals. Since it we now know there was some degree of interbreeding with the main line, Sapiens, many scientists regard the two lines as subspecies of one species. That would make Neandertals "human". Others still regard them as two species with modern humans being a form of hybrid species(and don't forget the Denisovans).

When you look at their level of technology and social organization, while it is slightly different from contemporary Sapiens, it's not so different as to declare them nonhuman. They buried their dead, lived in small communities, used tools extensively, built living structures contemporary for the times and life styles, appear to have created art, wore adornments, etc.. These things also mark them as "human".

While there used to be considerable contention that they were "different" than contemporary Sapiens, the "difference gap" is shrinking with more modern research. Later Neandertals, like Sapiens of the time, displayed pretty human behavior.

It's getting harder to argue that they weren't "human", though some people still do.

Checkout Wikipedia's articles and links to get some basic background or do a Google search for lots of online content. John Hawk's blog (the one linked in the article) is very good for some insight into some of the research going on. Also make sure to link back to some of John Timmer's articles here at ARS for good coverage of recent research.

I think his point was a legal one, not a scientific one. The point is that current laws on the books may not be able to stop it, leaving a loophole for the mad scientists. And they do exist (see: lobotomy).

The picture is nice, but it would be even nicer if we could see the lateral links that reconnect the neanderthals and denisovans to the appropriate human subgroups to indicate that we interbred.

I think those connections are not in this figure on purpose. This graph simply represents the similarities of the genomes, so is as close to the data as possible. The whole interbreeding scenarios are just one of the possible interpretations of the data (even though assumed to be the most likely one).

The bottom line here is that the coincidence of Neanderthal - modern human DNA suggests but does not prove or guarantee all sorts of possibilities, including that Neanderthals were much more intelligent and primitive-tech savvy than we give them credit for. With the paucity of physical evidence from that time, the best we can rely on about this is our informed speculation. And I'd say it's certainly reasonable to suppose that Neanderthals could indeed have fit in with our culture, and indeed part of our culture may be Neanderthal derived.

So if they ever do complete the Neanderthal Genome, and someone decides to clone a Neanderthal, would that be legal ? Since technically, they aren't "human" by definition.

Yes they were. A different species, but as also human.

Since we're classed as Homo Sapiens Sapiens and we're descended from Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Cro-Magnonensis, we're all classified as the same species. The sub-species are different. Also, since we now know that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal interbred and produced viable offspring there's another reason to consider us the same species.

So if they ever do complete the Neanderthal Genome, and someone decides to clone a Neanderthal, would that be legal ? Since technically, they aren't "human" by definition.

Yes they were. A different species, but as also human.

Since we're classed as Homo Sapiens Sapiens and we're descended from Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Cro-Magnonensis, we're all classified as the same species. The sub-species are different. Also, since we now know that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal interbred and produced viable offspring there's another reason to consider us the same species.

Just wanted to agree with your position. Didn't want to get into a protracted "species debate" before.

Nnnnnnno. There's no such thing as "Homo sapiens cro-magonensis." Cro Magnon man is typical of early European populations of Homo sapiens sapiens, or "anatomically modern humans." That's all of us today and going back about 200,000 years, as compared to archaic humans which may or may not have been a group comprised of separate species. Whether Neanderthals should be considered the same species as us is contentious. Just because interbreeding successfully took place does not automatically mean that we belong to the same species. See "the species problem" for a quick run-down of why the classification of species is difficult and not always clear; especially when you're dealing with fossil species.

So the old song is untrue. Clearly the toe bone is connected to the finger bone.

Shavano wrote:

AreWeThereYeti wrote:

The picture is nice, but it would be even nicer if we could see the lateral links that reconnect the neanderthals and denisovans to the appropriate human subgroups to indicate that we interbred.

Those would go to the branch that includes all the non-African groups. Only the Yoruba and San branches on the graph would not show links to Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Actually the many genomes sequenced has given yet another signal. A US man showed a rare Y chromosome that diverged way before Modern humans appeared (~ 350 ky vs ~ 200 ky), and from that they found a couple of africans with the same allele. Press release a few weeks ago, IIRC.

So some africans has other links to ancient populations, quite possibly Neanderthals or Denisovans alleles not yet sequenced, quite possibly something else.

fryhole wrote:

So if they ever do complete the Neanderthal Genome, and someone decides to clone a Neanderthal, would that be legal ? Since technically, they aren't "human" by definition.

First, just because you have a sequence doesn't mean you have all the regulations (say, histones) down pat. An exact clone is likely not possible. I think there was a thorough conference on the subject just the other week, which may interest you. I would be surprized if they claimed it would be possible with a "somewhat" near clone sometime soon.

In any case, the question is moral, and we would not do it because they were sufficiently like us that there would be moral problems.

Beyond wrote:

Since we're classed as Homo Sapiens Sapiens

There is no consensus as of yet. Hence anthropologists et cetera refer to "Modern [human]" et cetera.

Same goes with the introgressions. Plenty of species can do similar stuff, yet be considered separated by geography, behavior et cetera. For example, sticklebacks. [ "Speciation in reverse: morphological and genetic evidence of the collapse of a three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) species pair.", http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16448405 ]

So if they ever do complete the Neanderthal Genome, and someone decides to clone a Neanderthal, would that be legal ? Since technically, they aren't "human" by definition.

Yes they were. A different species, but as also human.

Since we're classed as Homo Sapiens Sapiens and we're descended from Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Cro-Magnonensis, we're all classified as the same species. The sub-species are different. Also, since we now know that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal interbred and produced viable offspring there's another reason to consider us the same species.

Just wanted to agree with your position. Didn't want to get into a protracted "species debate" before.

I see there's some dissension below, so I'll add some history and perspective. I was an Anthropology student at the U of Mn in the late 60's and early 70's; a while ago, no? One of my professors was a British gentleman who had done extensive archaeological work on sites that had been inhabited by both Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal. He felt there was ample evidence of interbreeding as evidenced by hybrid types found on site, among other things. He made a good case for his view. He did intimate however that his analysis was not popular with certain powerful groups (religions) and that there was suppression of some of the data. Remember this was over 40 years ago and these groups had much more clout than they do today. Over the succeeding years there has been a seesaw battle over whether modern man did indeed have Neanderthal ancestors. At times it was acclaimed that it was "proven" that there was no mixing of the types. Hopefully DNA evidence has finally cleared this up but I think the details of the picture will continue to evolve for some time. Now some are playing a game concerning what a species is or is not and subtly altering classifications, possibly to appease certain groups (perhaps related to the "intelligent" design non-science). This is a touchy subject for many, but let science be science. Altering or suppressing research to fit social biases has happened too often, another unfortunate byproduct of ethnocentrism.

The religious angle is interesting, and I can see the point about playing games. That isn't very fruitful, and in retrospect I think my comments were too categorical. But I have seen paleontologists like John Hawks (IIRC) and evolutionists like Coyne discuss species classifications, so I don't think it is too categorical to claim the issues are still open. The H sap sap label is not consensus (or is it?), say.

Over the succeeding years there has been a seesaw battle over whether modern man did indeed have Neanderthal ancestors. At times it was acclaimed that it was "proven" that there was no mixing of the types. Hopefully DNA evidence has finally cleared this up but I think the details of the picture will continue to evolve for some time.

It's pretty well proven that most people with non-African heritage have varying (but small) levels of Neanderthal nuclear DNA, indicating at least one admixture event in the distant past. A small number of Asian populations have DNA from a separate human population called Denisovans. This is not controversial. But the contributions from either hominin group are tiny, and most African H. sapiens sapiens groups don't have them. The evidence indicates that H. sapiens sapiens itself is not a result of cross-breeding with Neanderthal populations.

Quote:

Now some are playing a game concerning what a species is or is not and subtly altering classifications, possibly to appease certain groups (perhaps related to the "intelligent" design non-science).

If you think cdesign proponentsists have any sway over anthropological classifications, you're so far off-base you're not even in the same ballpark. That group of cranks has pretty much zero leverage or clout with which to distort the publication of mainstream findings to their advantage, and there is absolutely zero evidence that they've been able to do so. Compare the published findings on human evolution to what IDists and other Creationists want you to think.

Quote:

This is a touchy subject for many, but let science be science. Altering or suppressing research to fit social biases has happened too often, another unfortunate byproduct of ethnocentrism.

Another thing that happens too often is that people who hold unpopular views without sufficient evidence feel that they're the targets of political suppression or conspiracies.

Thanks also. J Hawks position is one species with subspecies, unless he changed it recently.

@Wheels,

Thanks as well. As far as I have read the data, the signal in the genomes actually pretty strongly supports at least two admixture events, one in the Levant during H. Sap. Sap.'s first Out of Africa and later in Europe and/or possibly Eurasia.

Beyond' s Prof story is interesting because I've heard/read similar stories/opinions from other very reputable Anthropologists, who found their, generally excellent, analyses of the fossil record opposed and marginalized by the group that didn't want to consider any admixture as a possibility. Religion was suggested as a factor in the politics of it all.

The DNA evidence is rapidly becoming incontrovertible, so denial is no longer a reputable position. John Timmer published a review here last year regarding a structured population model that tried to explain the Neandertal signal in modern DNA samples.The discussion regarding it is too long to go into here but I don't know of many, if any reputable experts who give it much credibility.

As to the contributions from the Neandertals and Denisovans being tiny, that is really a matter of definition. To my eye these are substantial contributions to the main line. Remember that the vast majority of DNA from all three lines is shared. For a signal to show up as strongly as these considering the vastly different population sizes involved, with H. Sap. Sap. outnumbering the other two lines by a factor of 10 or more (likely more) the contributions have be either rather substantial in number or confer considerable survival advantage to persist at the level we see them now.

We're not talking about equal populations here with random interbreeding. We're talking about vastly different interbreeding populations with two of the three lines becoming functionally extinct when overwhelmed (as far as we can see) by a much greater population, the main line. For the two minor signals to remain so clearly and significantly visible something significant happened. (Let the arguments begin. )

Remember that without the two minor lines' DNA contributions all H. Sap Sap., all of us, would generally look like and be similar to aboriginal Central and Southern African populations. The signal may be tiny by your standards but it looks "not tiny" to me. To me a signal of 3%-5% (and even possibly more in some regions) for one minority and 6%, for a regional population of millions for the other minority are definitely "not tiny", but, Hey YMMV.

Another thing that happens too often is that people who hold unpopular views without sufficient evidence feel that they're the targets of political suppression or conspiracies.

I also have to take issue with this statement of yours. This statement is beneath you. The Anthropologists who held the position that Beyond talks about were actually very good researchers who presented AMPLE evidence, to anyone who would actually look at the fossil record without bias. There were quite a few very good people in the field who agreed with their position. Their evidence was actually BETTER than the "mainstream" that took hold for some decades (about 2 decades IIRC) and their position has become completely vindicated with the present day Genome Studies.

The "people without sufficient evidence" were actually the "mainstream" folks, who actively ignored or dismissed evidence that was PRESENT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.

I actually think that your remark, suggesting that these scientists' experience/perception of the situation amounts to a persecution complex, is quite insulting. I've met some of them. They weren't paranoid; they were expressing true impressions of the situation and I've come to trust those.